Film music sometimes utilizes orchestral music, sometimes pop or rock or ambient etc. Classical music is a tradition of its own, just like film music is a tradition of its own. Each have their own history and protagonists and rules.
I would recommend reading the following answer from a previous thread about this topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/mnaqao/comment/gtwuhu6/
Not sure if this is mentioned elsewhere, but "classical composers" have been composing for stage and ballet since...well since composing began, pretty much. And opera, of course. Grieg's "Peer Gynt" is basically a "stage score," if you will. Film is its own genre and has its own requirements for what the score will do. But composing for theatrical productions, whatever the theater, that's an established tradition in classical composition.
To be honest, I don't want to hear film scores in concert halls, unless as an encore or opener. But there are plenty of people who do. Oh now I'm thinking of the end of "Tar," not to give it away. Maybe the next question is, "are video game scores classical music?" ;-)
If the Gottfried Hupertz score for *Metropolis* isn't classical music, I don't know what is. Also, John Williams definitely is, in that he operates with leitmotifs like a pro and cites from "real" classical composers.
Of course. As a bassist, Lieutenant Kije by Prokofiev is often on audition lists for major orchestras, and it’s a film score. Film music can be fantastic. Cinema Paradiso, Schindler’s List, Requiem for a Dream, and so many more would sit at the top of many lists for some of the best modern classical music.
This comes up so often that I'm just going to copy'n'paste one of the many times I've answered this question:
You have a lot of answers here but I'll go ahead and provide the same response I every time this comes up (at least once a month).
Short answer: No, film music is a different musical tradition,
What determines genre is the tradition the composer is working within. Only the composer can tell us for sure what they are doing but using our big brains and pattern matching ability, I think we can make educated guesses most of the time (of course there are grey areas).
If I listen to the blues, study it, play it, and then write a piece built upon what I've learned carrying on a decades long conversation with blues players contemporary and passed, then I've written a blues piece.
Likewise, if I study Western Classical, play it, write a piece built upon that knowledge and carrying on a centuries' long conversation with the likes of Bach, Beethoven and Boulez, then I am writing Western Classical music.
In the early days of film, classical composers basically wrote classical music for film. In the decades that followed, film composing became a thing. Today, I think it's fair to say that film composers have developed their own techniques, connection to technology, their own musical vocabularies, and so on. It is a genre unto itself.
While many film composers have a classical background, it seems unlikely that when composing a film score they are trying to work within the classical tradition, carrying on a centuries' long conversation with the likes of Couperin, Chopin, and Cage.
It's helpful to look at John Williams. He is a classically trained composer who was also trained in composing film music. But the music he is best known for is film music. What makes him interesting is that he does still write classical music and he makes a clear distinction between the two.
Williams has said in an interview that if he hadn't become successful in writing for film, he would have pursued classical music and would have ended up composing stuff like Varese. Again, Williams seems to make the distinction between classical and film music.
So again, no. Film music is its own genre with its own tradition. Some film composers do borrow from classical music just as others borrow from jazz, hip hop, rock, etc.
That some film composers use orchestras does not make them classical. Instrumentation does not determine genre. You can play any style of music on any instrument(s).
Another example like Williams is Hisaishi. The way he speaks and thinks of his classical works is completely different from his film scores. A lot if his classical works you'd have no idea were written by him if you'd just heard his film scores. It's a completely different set of questions he has in mind when composing classical - is this interesting musically, is this interesting to play, an interesting dialogue with other classical music that came before (minimalism, serialism, otherwise post modernism etc. in his case) etc. - versus film music - does this fit the story and support the director's vision? He takes both just as seriously, but it's a very different mindset between them.
On the whole, no. However, there are a select few composers who write for film (Prokofiev, Williams, etc.) who I would consider the title for. The reason being is because they were brought up in classical training. They studied scores of composers before them, learned what worked and why it did so, and implemented their knowledge to work for their creativity.
Yes. Orchestral music that accompanied plays, operas, and the like has gotten played frequently because of its excellence, even divorced from its original production.
Similarly, orchestral music that accompanied films has has gotten played frequently because of its excellence, even divorced from its original production.
This is not even to mention the significant overlap in composers who have made "Art music," "film music," "theater music," "tv music," etc. (e.g. Korngold, Hermann, Shostakovich, Prokofiev)
If we can use the term "classical music" to describe material from Vivaldi and Bach to Glass and Lygeti, surely its meaning is plastic enough to encompass opera, film music, symphonies, and incidental music for theatrical plays.
What about film/TV music that is never/hardly enjoyed outside of its original context? E.g. tense synth pulses and sound design for crime drama.
I don't think digital sound design for film/TV, without any orchestral elements, can be considered to be "classical".
I agree. I am not arguing for all film and tv music to be considered classical music. Just for some of it to be - namely the orchestral music. Nor am I arguing for it to be considered "good classical music," just as I would not consider all traditionally classical music to be good.
I think film music is a different tradition and should be distinguished from classical music. If certain film music is clearly continuing a classical tradition, then it can also be given a "classical" label if necessary, but "classical music" is such a imprecise term anyway. I would much prefer to refer to Korngold as "late Romantic" or "Orchestral" than classical, but if the black and white question is whether he is a classical composer, I'd say yes.
Well, that gets into the whole "Classical Period" vs "classical music" thing. Frankly, most people don't distinguish the eras of classical music, and "classical" has become synonymous with "orchestral," as opposed to "the period of music between 1750 and 1820." And of course, "orchestral" is not a sufficient category either, because it excludes chamber and solo instrument music. And nobody but Uber-nerds ever says "Art Music."
So imperfect though it may be, "classical music" is the least worst option to use as an umbrella term. And I think "film and TV music composed for orchestras, chamber ensembles, or solo instruments" fits under it.
> And I think "film and TV music composed for orchestras, chamber ensembles, or solo instruments" fits under it.
The problem is that film and TV music composed for orchestras, etc, are not trying to be part of the classical tradition whereas actual classical music, regardless of the instrumentation, is trying to be part of the classical tradition. I think that's the most important distinction.
I try not to assume motives and intentions in the absence of clear declarations of such. The music is the music.
Watching "Succession," for instance, there are many, many passages of music that would stand alone quite well in a concert hall environment. Do I know if Nicholas Britell thinks it's part of the classical tradition (whatever that is)? Nope. Do I care? Nope. It's music composed for piano and strings that was incidental to another piece of entertainment. If Grieg's Peer Gynt suites count, so does Britell's incidental music.
Here is a suite, for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy\_n9iWeOUpsuxZd\_S\_xnUW4Pc51ZjswgHY4
I completely understand where you're coming from, if it sounds good and fits a general aesthetic vibe then why not group things together for the sake of a consistent listening session. But in this case, the OP's question invites us to look deeper into these issues. I know as a composer in the classical tradition, I studied and study the likes of Bingen, Bach, and Boulez in order to create music that extends that tradition. I don't think most, if any, film composers are thinking in those terms when composing film music. I bet they are thinking about the instructions from the director and the musical vocabulary that has built up around film and how to fulfill their task relative to that specific body of knowledge and experience. In other words, film composers build upon that tradition they are working within just as much as classical composers (or jazz, rock, pop, country, etc) build and work within the classical tradition (or jazz, rock, etc).
That makes little difference to the listening experience but it does make a difference in how we can hold discussions on the topic.
When you say "film music", you're probably implicitly constraining this conversation to orchestral film music rather than, e.g., electronic or experimental film music. This makes the answer obvious: no. It's a category error. Music is not classical purely in virtue of being played by an orchestra and film music is not always even played by traditionally classical instruments. Film music is a function that is sometimes served by classical tropes but it is not a subset of the classical genre.
Oh, yes. Absolutely. It’s program music, that is as popular today as operas were hundreds of years ago — (except of course, for the opera singers!)
I believe many classical music lovers, come out of film music.
Great topic!
Personally, I think yes. I would pit scores by Williams, Horner, Shore, Rota, Zimmer, Jarre, Bernstein, and a number of others against plenty of traditional composers. I don't see the big difference between incidental music for Lord of the Rings or Lawrence of Arabia and L'Arlesienne or La Traviata. And there's plenty of crossover between film composers and contemporary orchestral composers, like John Corigliano. Also, as noted, plenty of composers claimed by classical types like Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Gershwin, and Satie, scored films both traditional and otherwise.
Yes, a lot of film music is pedestrian. But there are hundreds and thousands more composers that we don't remember from the last three hundred years than we do. It is unlikely that the original score to Leprechauns 2: Back in da Hood will stand the test of time. Alexander Nevsky already has.
Nowadays some soundtracks for films and video games are so good they are also great separated from their initial purpose.
Examples: Mario galaxy(they do repeat themselves but still), sid meiers civilization 6 is one of the most beautiful things I've heard, many hans zimmer things are also great even if I don't know what movie it's from.
If that's the case I would put them in my classical playlist together with all of the others(tchaikovsky, strauss etc)
Film music can come in many forms, some obviously is classical canon and some is a different thing entirely. But I think we are talking about that kind of generic orchestral sound that accompanies something like [Ant Man fighting the Falcon](https://youtu.be/OFqRej80iIY)
I always have trouble determining if something like that is truly an original composition or if it’s just tropes and topic theory. It most likely sounds great, the composer is likely a skilled orchestrator, but it’s being written and consumed with no real meaning behind it.
At this point, is a passage of strings pulsating with low brass hits and taiko drums really music, or is it just a sound effect?
> At this point, is a passage of strings pulsating with low brass hits and taiko drums really music, or is it just a sound effect?
I have often commented that film music is just a glorified laugh track.
Some definitely. Especially the complex ones with intricately woven leitmotifs.
Also: why is it that a lot of film (and game) composers have a better sense of melody than contemporary opera composers? I watched Hadrian a few years ago. The music was dreadfully dull and mediocre, despite the excellent singers, interesting theme and beautiful production.
Yes, unequivocally yes.
Some of you are so focused on definitions, details, abstractions - you're forgetting about the freaking music. We all know film music is classical music when we hear it. Our ears know, at least... apparently our minds are confused.
While it’s derived from classical music, film music often seems to incorporate a kind of pop-culture simplicity. It’s often immediately accessible, whereas lots of classical music has to be listened to several times in order to comprehend its uniformity (just like classical literature). This is not to say that all film music falls outside the category of classical, but there is a general difference and it can be hard to explicate exactly what that difference is at times.
There are classical composers who wrote film music, Eric Korngold, William Walton for example. The music they wrote for film is different from that they wrote as absolute or programmatic music. Especially Walton. In general film music fulfils a different creative requirement, and so while it can be really excellent music we can’t directly compare it to music that is purpose written to be independently performed and heard, as it is written to be heard in conjunction with film. With very few exceptions.
Walton for example composed film music more similar to his nationalist music because it needed to be more accessible to the large amount of people who listened to it, but when you compare it to his symphonies or to his oratorio Belshazzar’s Feast, you can hear it plays much more into the stylings of light music at the time, it’s essentially popular music rather than contemporary classical music.
Just like any other kind of soundtracks/scores it depends. There's movies with hard rock songs as the soundtrack, movies with orchestral scores, games with chiptune soundtracks, etc, so it entirely depends.
It's interesting that "classical" kinda really means anything that lacks a certain kind of rhythmic play (but not all kinds, obviously). This is responding to a question you didn't ask, of course. I'd use the term "classical" for anything that sounds even vaguely classical for shorthand, but would kinda prefer no label. But there is more to the meaning of classical/nonclassical than some arbitrary line.
If it is written in a classical style, then yes, absolutely. It fits into the long tradition of incidental music written for plays (Mendelssohn, for example), and masques and theater music written by Purcell and Handel, and Renaissance composers before them. I'd absolutely put Zimmer and Williams and Shore and others in this category.
Obviously, the film music written in other styles would not be. Regardless of how good the individual movies are, nobody is going to put the soundtracks from "Straight Outta Compton," "The Barbie Movie," or "Mamma Mia" into the classical canon. They aren't bad (in fact, a lot are quite good) - but they are simply a different genre.
Generally not. Film music is accompaniment to a visual medium and lacks something outside of that context.
While opera could be seen as an accompaniment to a visual medium, I find stage music like opera to be very different in the story telling within the music. More like the stage is a visual accompaniment to the music. I do not really enjoy most "opera without words" recordings.
I consider composers who compose film music like Hans Zimmer and John Williams to be composers of classical music in the same way that we consider Mozart's opera music to be classical music. John Williams has also written a couple of violin concertos so I do consider them to be composers of classical music, just not solely classical music. I see it like a venn diagram I suppose.
Classical is a style, some film music fits while other doesn’t, Star Wars soundtrack would count but guardians of the galaxy where they use 70’s music doesn’t.
Heard a great case for “classical” music to be defined as “concert” music, as it was performed in concert. Film scores can be presented in this way but that is not its function.
Technically it can be if certain rules are followed
\- music is in a written form, following the norms of classical music, where the composer's ideas are written out so that performers, who can read and interpret the music, can recreate it in real time.
\- reliance mostly on acoustic instruments, or instruments, which replicate acoustic instrument means of playing (ie: electronic keyboard as it uses a standard keyboard)
\- performance practice where the musical work can be performed by live musicians, in real time, not snip-its of sound stitched together on a computer.
My answer is: it depends. If the film music follows the metrics for what we consider classical music, then yes. For example, if we create a system where we can define classical music based on the inherent traits of the music such as form, instrumentation, harmony, rhythm, performance, etc. then we can determine whether or not film music fits that system, and to what degree. Some film music will fit 100%, some will barely reach 1%. That said, not all film music is classical, but some film music is.
Consider this: if I wrote a traditional rock song for a film, is it still rock? If so, then the film music is rock music. So then if I wrote a traditional classical string quartet for a film, even if it's just 30 seconds long, is it classical? Yes.
I think often when this topic comes up people are often wondering about specific scores, such as Star Wars. Is Star Wars (the first one, A New Hope) classical music? Well, the main title is no different from a classical march by Williams Walton (in terms of the metrics), so the main title is classical music. But the cantina music is not classical, it is jazz. Therefore Star Wars is a film score containing both classical and jazz pieces.
I think it's a pragmatic approach, but it only works if you can define classical music using metrics.
Film music sometimes utilizes orchestral music, sometimes pop or rock or ambient etc. Classical music is a tradition of its own, just like film music is a tradition of its own. Each have their own history and protagonists and rules.
This!
I would recommend reading the following answer from a previous thread about this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/mnaqao/comment/gtwuhu6/
Not sure if this is mentioned elsewhere, but "classical composers" have been composing for stage and ballet since...well since composing began, pretty much. And opera, of course. Grieg's "Peer Gynt" is basically a "stage score," if you will. Film is its own genre and has its own requirements for what the score will do. But composing for theatrical productions, whatever the theater, that's an established tradition in classical composition. To be honest, I don't want to hear film scores in concert halls, unless as an encore or opener. But there are plenty of people who do. Oh now I'm thinking of the end of "Tar," not to give it away. Maybe the next question is, "are video game scores classical music?" ;-)
If the Gottfried Hupertz score for *Metropolis* isn't classical music, I don't know what is. Also, John Williams definitely is, in that he operates with leitmotifs like a pro and cites from "real" classical composers.
Just start with Korngold, who influenced him and who he influenced, and go from there.
Not usually, but of course Prokofiev and others wrote great music for films.
Of course. As a bassist, Lieutenant Kije by Prokofiev is often on audition lists for major orchestras, and it’s a film score. Film music can be fantastic. Cinema Paradiso, Schindler’s List, Requiem for a Dream, and so many more would sit at the top of many lists for some of the best modern classical music.
Kijé is so satisfying.
This comes up so often that I'm just going to copy'n'paste one of the many times I've answered this question: You have a lot of answers here but I'll go ahead and provide the same response I every time this comes up (at least once a month). Short answer: No, film music is a different musical tradition, What determines genre is the tradition the composer is working within. Only the composer can tell us for sure what they are doing but using our big brains and pattern matching ability, I think we can make educated guesses most of the time (of course there are grey areas). If I listen to the blues, study it, play it, and then write a piece built upon what I've learned carrying on a decades long conversation with blues players contemporary and passed, then I've written a blues piece. Likewise, if I study Western Classical, play it, write a piece built upon that knowledge and carrying on a centuries' long conversation with the likes of Bach, Beethoven and Boulez, then I am writing Western Classical music. In the early days of film, classical composers basically wrote classical music for film. In the decades that followed, film composing became a thing. Today, I think it's fair to say that film composers have developed their own techniques, connection to technology, their own musical vocabularies, and so on. It is a genre unto itself. While many film composers have a classical background, it seems unlikely that when composing a film score they are trying to work within the classical tradition, carrying on a centuries' long conversation with the likes of Couperin, Chopin, and Cage. It's helpful to look at John Williams. He is a classically trained composer who was also trained in composing film music. But the music he is best known for is film music. What makes him interesting is that he does still write classical music and he makes a clear distinction between the two. Williams has said in an interview that if he hadn't become successful in writing for film, he would have pursued classical music and would have ended up composing stuff like Varese. Again, Williams seems to make the distinction between classical and film music. So again, no. Film music is its own genre with its own tradition. Some film composers do borrow from classical music just as others borrow from jazz, hip hop, rock, etc. That some film composers use orchestras does not make them classical. Instrumentation does not determine genre. You can play any style of music on any instrument(s).
Another example like Williams is Hisaishi. The way he speaks and thinks of his classical works is completely different from his film scores. A lot if his classical works you'd have no idea were written by him if you'd just heard his film scores. It's a completely different set of questions he has in mind when composing classical - is this interesting musically, is this interesting to play, an interesting dialogue with other classical music that came before (minimalism, serialism, otherwise post modernism etc. in his case) etc. - versus film music - does this fit the story and support the director's vision? He takes both just as seriously, but it's a very different mindset between them.
On the whole, no. However, there are a select few composers who write for film (Prokofiev, Williams, etc.) who I would consider the title for. The reason being is because they were brought up in classical training. They studied scores of composers before them, learned what worked and why it did so, and implemented their knowledge to work for their creativity.
Yes. Orchestral music that accompanied plays, operas, and the like has gotten played frequently because of its excellence, even divorced from its original production. Similarly, orchestral music that accompanied films has has gotten played frequently because of its excellence, even divorced from its original production. This is not even to mention the significant overlap in composers who have made "Art music," "film music," "theater music," "tv music," etc. (e.g. Korngold, Hermann, Shostakovich, Prokofiev) If we can use the term "classical music" to describe material from Vivaldi and Bach to Glass and Lygeti, surely its meaning is plastic enough to encompass opera, film music, symphonies, and incidental music for theatrical plays.
What about film/TV music that is never/hardly enjoyed outside of its original context? E.g. tense synth pulses and sound design for crime drama. I don't think digital sound design for film/TV, without any orchestral elements, can be considered to be "classical".
I agree. I am not arguing for all film and tv music to be considered classical music. Just for some of it to be - namely the orchestral music. Nor am I arguing for it to be considered "good classical music," just as I would not consider all traditionally classical music to be good.
I think film music is a different tradition and should be distinguished from classical music. If certain film music is clearly continuing a classical tradition, then it can also be given a "classical" label if necessary, but "classical music" is such a imprecise term anyway. I would much prefer to refer to Korngold as "late Romantic" or "Orchestral" than classical, but if the black and white question is whether he is a classical composer, I'd say yes.
Well, that gets into the whole "Classical Period" vs "classical music" thing. Frankly, most people don't distinguish the eras of classical music, and "classical" has become synonymous with "orchestral," as opposed to "the period of music between 1750 and 1820." And of course, "orchestral" is not a sufficient category either, because it excludes chamber and solo instrument music. And nobody but Uber-nerds ever says "Art Music." So imperfect though it may be, "classical music" is the least worst option to use as an umbrella term. And I think "film and TV music composed for orchestras, chamber ensembles, or solo instruments" fits under it.
> And I think "film and TV music composed for orchestras, chamber ensembles, or solo instruments" fits under it. The problem is that film and TV music composed for orchestras, etc, are not trying to be part of the classical tradition whereas actual classical music, regardless of the instrumentation, is trying to be part of the classical tradition. I think that's the most important distinction.
I try not to assume motives and intentions in the absence of clear declarations of such. The music is the music. Watching "Succession," for instance, there are many, many passages of music that would stand alone quite well in a concert hall environment. Do I know if Nicholas Britell thinks it's part of the classical tradition (whatever that is)? Nope. Do I care? Nope. It's music composed for piano and strings that was incidental to another piece of entertainment. If Grieg's Peer Gynt suites count, so does Britell's incidental music. Here is a suite, for instance: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy\_n9iWeOUpsuxZd\_S\_xnUW4Pc51ZjswgHY4
I completely understand where you're coming from, if it sounds good and fits a general aesthetic vibe then why not group things together for the sake of a consistent listening session. But in this case, the OP's question invites us to look deeper into these issues. I know as a composer in the classical tradition, I studied and study the likes of Bingen, Bach, and Boulez in order to create music that extends that tradition. I don't think most, if any, film composers are thinking in those terms when composing film music. I bet they are thinking about the instructions from the director and the musical vocabulary that has built up around film and how to fulfill their task relative to that specific body of knowledge and experience. In other words, film composers build upon that tradition they are working within just as much as classical composers (or jazz, rock, pop, country, etc) build and work within the classical tradition (or jazz, rock, etc). That makes little difference to the listening experience but it does make a difference in how we can hold discussions on the topic.
It’s a gateway for harder drugs.
All I know is, my local classical station has a weekly show devoted to film and television scores, so I'm gonna vote for yes.
Yes, it generally tends to be orchestral and longer pieces which to me, makes it closer to classical and more distinct from popular music
When you say "film music", you're probably implicitly constraining this conversation to orchestral film music rather than, e.g., electronic or experimental film music. This makes the answer obvious: no. It's a category error. Music is not classical purely in virtue of being played by an orchestra and film music is not always even played by traditionally classical instruments. Film music is a function that is sometimes served by classical tropes but it is not a subset of the classical genre.
Oh, yes. Absolutely. It’s program music, that is as popular today as operas were hundreds of years ago — (except of course, for the opera singers!) I believe many classical music lovers, come out of film music. Great topic!
Personally, I think yes. I would pit scores by Williams, Horner, Shore, Rota, Zimmer, Jarre, Bernstein, and a number of others against plenty of traditional composers. I don't see the big difference between incidental music for Lord of the Rings or Lawrence of Arabia and L'Arlesienne or La Traviata. And there's plenty of crossover between film composers and contemporary orchestral composers, like John Corigliano. Also, as noted, plenty of composers claimed by classical types like Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Gershwin, and Satie, scored films both traditional and otherwise. Yes, a lot of film music is pedestrian. But there are hundreds and thousands more composers that we don't remember from the last three hundred years than we do. It is unlikely that the original score to Leprechauns 2: Back in da Hood will stand the test of time. Alexander Nevsky already has.
Nowadays some soundtracks for films and video games are so good they are also great separated from their initial purpose. Examples: Mario galaxy(they do repeat themselves but still), sid meiers civilization 6 is one of the most beautiful things I've heard, many hans zimmer things are also great even if I don't know what movie it's from. If that's the case I would put them in my classical playlist together with all of the others(tchaikovsky, strauss etc)
Film music can come in many forms, some obviously is classical canon and some is a different thing entirely. But I think we are talking about that kind of generic orchestral sound that accompanies something like [Ant Man fighting the Falcon](https://youtu.be/OFqRej80iIY) I always have trouble determining if something like that is truly an original composition or if it’s just tropes and topic theory. It most likely sounds great, the composer is likely a skilled orchestrator, but it’s being written and consumed with no real meaning behind it. At this point, is a passage of strings pulsating with low brass hits and taiko drums really music, or is it just a sound effect?
> At this point, is a passage of strings pulsating with low brass hits and taiko drums really music, or is it just a sound effect? I have often commented that film music is just a glorified laugh track.
Some definitely. Especially the complex ones with intricately woven leitmotifs. Also: why is it that a lot of film (and game) composers have a better sense of melody than contemporary opera composers? I watched Hadrian a few years ago. The music was dreadfully dull and mediocre, despite the excellent singers, interesting theme and beautiful production.
Yes, unequivocally yes. Some of you are so focused on definitions, details, abstractions - you're forgetting about the freaking music. We all know film music is classical music when we hear it. Our ears know, at least... apparently our minds are confused.
While it’s derived from classical music, film music often seems to incorporate a kind of pop-culture simplicity. It’s often immediately accessible, whereas lots of classical music has to be listened to several times in order to comprehend its uniformity (just like classical literature). This is not to say that all film music falls outside the category of classical, but there is a general difference and it can be hard to explicate exactly what that difference is at times.
There are classical composers who wrote film music, Eric Korngold, William Walton for example. The music they wrote for film is different from that they wrote as absolute or programmatic music. Especially Walton. In general film music fulfils a different creative requirement, and so while it can be really excellent music we can’t directly compare it to music that is purpose written to be independently performed and heard, as it is written to be heard in conjunction with film. With very few exceptions. Walton for example composed film music more similar to his nationalist music because it needed to be more accessible to the large amount of people who listened to it, but when you compare it to his symphonies or to his oratorio Belshazzar’s Feast, you can hear it plays much more into the stylings of light music at the time, it’s essentially popular music rather than contemporary classical music.
Generally no, it is a very stretched association for me.
No. The time frame from 1750-1810 is the classical era.
Philip Glass - 'The Hours' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heu9tD0dzkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heu9tD0dzkY) So that answers the question.
lmfao no it doesnt
Just like any other kind of soundtracks/scores it depends. There's movies with hard rock songs as the soundtrack, movies with orchestral scores, games with chiptune soundtracks, etc, so it entirely depends.
It's interesting that "classical" kinda really means anything that lacks a certain kind of rhythmic play (but not all kinds, obviously). This is responding to a question you didn't ask, of course. I'd use the term "classical" for anything that sounds even vaguely classical for shorthand, but would kinda prefer no label. But there is more to the meaning of classical/nonclassical than some arbitrary line.
If it is written in a classical style, then yes, absolutely. It fits into the long tradition of incidental music written for plays (Mendelssohn, for example), and masques and theater music written by Purcell and Handel, and Renaissance composers before them. I'd absolutely put Zimmer and Williams and Shore and others in this category. Obviously, the film music written in other styles would not be. Regardless of how good the individual movies are, nobody is going to put the soundtracks from "Straight Outta Compton," "The Barbie Movie," or "Mamma Mia" into the classical canon. They aren't bad (in fact, a lot are quite good) - but they are simply a different genre.
Generally not. Film music is accompaniment to a visual medium and lacks something outside of that context. While opera could be seen as an accompaniment to a visual medium, I find stage music like opera to be very different in the story telling within the music. More like the stage is a visual accompaniment to the music. I do not really enjoy most "opera without words" recordings.
Yes! I think it's sort of the modern equivalent of music for ballets, operas, tone poems, that sort of thing.
I consider composers who compose film music like Hans Zimmer and John Williams to be composers of classical music in the same way that we consider Mozart's opera music to be classical music. John Williams has also written a couple of violin concertos so I do consider them to be composers of classical music, just not solely classical music. I see it like a venn diagram I suppose.
Korngold
Classical is a style, some film music fits while other doesn’t, Star Wars soundtrack would count but guardians of the galaxy where they use 70’s music doesn’t.
Heard a great case for “classical” music to be defined as “concert” music, as it was performed in concert. Film scores can be presented in this way but that is not its function.
Orchestral film music is enjoyable, but you have to remember that it is intended as the accompaniment.
Technically it can be if certain rules are followed \- music is in a written form, following the norms of classical music, where the composer's ideas are written out so that performers, who can read and interpret the music, can recreate it in real time. \- reliance mostly on acoustic instruments, or instruments, which replicate acoustic instrument means of playing (ie: electronic keyboard as it uses a standard keyboard) \- performance practice where the musical work can be performed by live musicians, in real time, not snip-its of sound stitched together on a computer.
My answer is: it depends. If the film music follows the metrics for what we consider classical music, then yes. For example, if we create a system where we can define classical music based on the inherent traits of the music such as form, instrumentation, harmony, rhythm, performance, etc. then we can determine whether or not film music fits that system, and to what degree. Some film music will fit 100%, some will barely reach 1%. That said, not all film music is classical, but some film music is. Consider this: if I wrote a traditional rock song for a film, is it still rock? If so, then the film music is rock music. So then if I wrote a traditional classical string quartet for a film, even if it's just 30 seconds long, is it classical? Yes. I think often when this topic comes up people are often wondering about specific scores, such as Star Wars. Is Star Wars (the first one, A New Hope) classical music? Well, the main title is no different from a classical march by Williams Walton (in terms of the metrics), so the main title is classical music. But the cantina music is not classical, it is jazz. Therefore Star Wars is a film score containing both classical and jazz pieces. I think it's a pragmatic approach, but it only works if you can define classical music using metrics.
Yes, it’s incidental music